1. MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.--- Through the instant Revision Petition, Muhammad Younas Khan has impugned the judgment dated 31-1-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 20-9-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge/trial Court was maintained.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The same was contested by respondent and during trial, the respondent filed an application for dismissal of suit, on the ground that the same was time-barred. The petitioner contested the same by filing written reply. However, the learned trial Court while accepting the application of the respondent, dismissed the suit, being not filed within time prescribed by section 31 of Pre-emption Act, 1987. Being dissatisfied, the present petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31-1-2013.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no notice was given under section 32 of the Act, 1987, which is mandatory provision and the suit was filed immediately after attaining knowledge, thus same was well within time.
5. 4.It is, by now well-established law that sections 31 and 32 of Act X of 1987 are independent from each other and non-compliance of section 32 by Registration Officer will not enlarge the time limit in different eventualities given in section 32. Though the language of section 32 (1), as it appears from its language to be mandatory, in view of expression "shall" used therein, but in fact it is directory for want of a penal clause. It is by now firmly settled that where the consequence of failure to comply the provision is not mentioned, the provision is directory and where the consequence is expressly mentioned, the provision is mandatory. The provision of section 32 of Act, 1987, being directory cannot in any manner over-ride or dilute the provisions of section 31 of the Act, which are mandatory by all standard. Reliance can be placed on Muhammad Aqeel v. Fayyaz Hussain and others (1999 M LD 1506), Noor Khan v. Mumtaz Khan (1994 CLC 1739) and Noorul Haq v.
6. Ibrahim Khalil (2000 SCM R 1305).
7. 5.From perusal of the record it transpired that the plaintiff/ petitioner has filed suit on the basis of registered sale-deed attested on 9-7-2010, which was annexed by him with his plaint. As per section 31 of Pre-emption Act, 1987, the suit should be filed within 120 days, from the date of registration of the sale-deed. The suit was filed on 30-11-2010, which was clearly beyond the prescribed limit of 120 days. Thus it was a futile exercise to continue the proceedings.
8. Under the circumstances, the suit was not maintainable, being hopelessly time-barred and the order passed by both the lower Courts below are in accordance with law. The present petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed in limine.